Before reading Coyne's comments this morning, I first reread an old piece called "Response to Behe's Critics, IIA and IIB," that I posted a few years ago on Amazon, which analyzed Coyne's review of Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution. In those posts, I listed some two dozen dubious arguments Coyne advanced, many of which involved logical errors, or just plain misreading Dr. Behe. Number 20 seemed particularly portentious:

(20) Coyne: "Science long ago dispensed with the notion of a scala natura: a progressive ladder of life with humans at the top."

DM: "This is confused. If we talk about value and meaning, that is a philosophical, moral, or religious question, not a scientific one. Fortunately most scientists are well-rounded and human enough to recognize that in fact, some organisms are more significant than others. (At least after office hours.) If we're talking about complexity or intelligence, then even science can recognize a scale in nature. But Coyne seems to be artificially narrowing the subject to the criterion of adaptability, or how long a species has evolved."

Coyne: "So what scientific reason can there be for singling out just one species as the Designer's goal? How do we know that the goal was not butterflies or sunflowers?"

DM: "When scientists ask such stupid questions, I despair of common sense in the Academy. If science cannot tell us that people are more significant than sunflowers, that only goes to show the limits of science, not that Pascal and petunias are morally equivalent. A scientist with no theology ought at least to supplement his intellectual diet with a little philosophy."

"I don’t think many theologians have ever faced serious opposition to their ideas, at least on the debate platform."

I'll be happy to debate you on my ideas, Dr. Coyne, if you would like to remedy that alleged defficiency.

"Today, my brothers and sisters, I’d like to speak briefly on Plantinga’s evidence for God’s existence, at least as laid out in his chapter “Reason and Belief on God”, pp. 102-161 in The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader (James F. Sennett, ed., 1998, Eeerdmans Publishing Co.). That chapter itself is taken from a book edited by Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff: Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (1983, University of Notre Dame Press). "

An excellent essay. Only, it is emphatically NOT about "Plantinga's evidence for God's existence," as Plantinga explains right away:

"In this essay I want to discuss a connected constellation of questions . . . Must one have evidence to be rational or reasonable in believing in God?" (Faith & Rationality, 16)

In fact, Plantinga makes no effort at all in this essay to give "evidence" for God's existence, nor does he promise to. Coyne thus appears, from the very beginning, to have misconstrued the purpose of the essay he purports to be criticizing.

Coyne is preaching to the other flowers on the forest floor, here. Considered philosophically, it is hard to know how anyone could possibly know that "there's no good empirical evidence for God's existence," still less be so smug about it. Has Dr. Coyne checked all the planets in every galaxy, for such evidence? Or even interviewed everyone on this planet? One should be more cautious about claiming universal negatives.

In fact, Coyne apparently has not even bothered to read the places where Plantinga really does offer evidence for Christianity.

This, at any rate, is a statement of dogmatism, not what Plantinga might call "the deliverances of empirical reasoning." Or perhaps Coyne takes the lack of evidence for Christianity as "properly basic?"

"After reviewing the history of theological evidentialism, beginning with Aquinas, Plantinga presents his own argument: that belief in God is a properly basic belief. A “properly basic belief” is one for which one doesn’t need evidence, for it is manifest to the senses immediately."

This, too, grossly mistates Plantinga's argument. Plantinga explicitly says that one can only define "properly basic" beliefs inductively, not with an a priori definition. Even the "foundationalist" definition of proper basicality that he give on page 75, then dismisses, does not assume that the properly basic object is "manifest to the senses immediately:"

"For any proposition A and person S, A is properly basic for S if and only if A is incorrigible for S or self-evident to S."

This Coyne misconstrues as Plantinga's own definition:

"Plantinga is fond of using philosophical logic to “clarify” ideas like this, and so this is how he defines his term:

For any proposition A and person S, A is properly basic for S if and only if A is incorrigible for S or self-evident to S. (p. 150)

But this is NOT Plantinga's definition of Proper Basicality. Plantinga explains this in the immediately prior sentence:

"The modern foundationalist's criterion for proper basicality, for example, is doubly universal:"

Plantinga then gives this definition, and explains, in the following pages, why he finds the whole foundational argument wobbly. To represent this as Plantinga's own definition, betrays a grotesque misreading of the text.

Coyne is also capable of purely philosophical misconstrual:

"Here are some examples of beliefs that Plantinga considers “properly basic,” i.e. beliefs for which one doesn’t need evidence. I’ll leave it to readers to judge whether evidence is unnecessary here:

I had breakfast this morning

I see a tree

That person is in pain

And, of course, there is a God"

Here, Coyne's misunderstanding is almost quaint. Coyne is intruding into an ancient discussion, with Descartes and Kant and numerous other philosophers, over what we know, and how we know it. (See comment section below, for more specific context, from philosopher Randal Rauser.) Plantinga recognizes, from his long acquaintance with careful reasoning on the subject, that it is harder to support facts we "all know" in the naive sense, our sense impressions, for instance, or our memories, or the intuitive leap that allows us to recognize that other people share our feelings, with strict, evidential reasoning, without begging the question. But Plantinga is assuming more careful thought on his reader's part. He does not seem to anticipate a reader like Coyne, who is evidently not familiar with that conversation, and takes sense and cognitive construals naively for granted in a way that careful philosophers dare not.

Coyne barges in like an Enfante Terrible, posing the questions of an amateur, indeed begging his reader to ignore careful thought, and go with their (uninformed) gut intuition. This is, of course, very much what non-biologists do, when they say, "But look at how complex the eye is! I'll leave it to the choir to judge whether or not it was designed -- but obviously it was!"

At one point, admittedly, Coyne does recognizes difficulties with naively accepting sensual data:

"But of course what is “evident’ to one person may not be so for others; for example, you may be deluded about whether you had breakfast, and the tree you see may be a hallucination. This is especially true for belief #4 above. How does Plantinga get around that? By asserting that the grounds for belief may differ from person to person and from community to community:

Accordingly, criteria for proper basicality must be reached from below rather than above; they should not be presented ex cathedra but argued to and tested by a relevant set of examples. But there is no reason to assume, in advance, that everyone will agree on the examples. The Christian will of course suppose that belief in God is entirely proper and rational; if he does not accept this belief on the basis of other propositions, he will conclude that it is basic for him and properly so. Followers of Bertrand Russell and Madelyn Murray O’Hare may disagree; but how is that relevant? Must my criteria, or those of the Christian community, conform to their examples? Surely not. The Christian community is responsible to its set of examples, not to theirs. (p. 151)

"I find this evasive, self-serving, and intellectually indefensible. What he is saying is that what counts as “grounds” (i.e., evidence) . . . "

By persisting in conflating "evidence" and "grounds for belief," Coyne gives evidence that he needs to begin by studying Philosophy 101, not by attacking Alvin Plantinga.

" . . . for God for some people won’t—and needn’t—count for others. That, of course, is a big difference between science and theology."

But it is not. I have grounds for thinking I see a bare, leafless aspen tree outside my office window, right now. Dr. Coyne may think he has no such grounds. He may in fact have no such grounds. He may in fact have no such tree.

So what follows about the grounding of my belief in the tree? Very little. Similarly, if I think faith in God is grounded for me, or if indeed it is grounded for me, or even if God has indeed revealed Himself to me, say by sending an angel to liberate me from prison, it hardly follows that Dr. Coyne will necessarily admit that, not, perhaps, sharing those grounds. Even if faith in God is grounded for Dr. Coyne, it is also possible he denies that grounding, perhaps for reasons Plantinga (and St. Paul) mention at various points.

"Of course this argument can be used to support all kinds of nonsensical beliefs. Plantinga brings up one: belief in The Great Pumpkin, of Peanuts fame . . . And what, exactly, is that relevant difference?

Thus, for example, the Reformed epistemologist may concur with Calvin in holding that god has implanted in us a natural tendency to see his hand in the world around us; the same cannot be said for the Great Pumpkin, there being no Great Pumpkin and no natural tendency to accept beliefs about the Great Pumpkin. (pp. 151-152).

"What a tangled thicket of logic we must make our way through here!"

Here one almost sympathizes with Dr. Coyne. He does, indeed, seem to find Plantinga a "tangled thicket." Perhaps he is doing his best to follow an abstract logical argument, maybe for the first time since his undergraduate days, and is finding, to his surprise, that his best is not quite enough.

What follows are Coyne's attempts to hack through that thicket:

"First of all, not everyone has a natural tendency to see God’s hand in the world . . . "

Plantinga didn't say that exactly. He said some people may think (hinting that he is sympathetic) that God has implanted an awareness of Him in us. It would not at all follow, in Plantinga's view, that given sin, everyone would retain that awareness in its full and least ambiguous form. (In our interview, indeed, Dr. Plantinga noted that he wished his own awareness were keener than it is.)

"and even if they do, how does Plantinga know that that tendency was implanted by God, rather than having been taught to credulous children by their parents or preachers?"

How does Coyne know that it wasn't implanted by God, perhaps at times by means of parents and preachers? (Though developmental psychologist Olivera Petrovich finds that it even seems to turn up among young Japanese children who are not so taught.)

"Is there really a “natural tendency” to accept beliefs in God without having been taught them?"

Probably.

"And which God?"

The Creator God. The God who demands justice. The St. Paul /Calvin /Plantinga model nicely accounts for polytheism, if that is the alternative Coyne is heading towards.

When I asked Dr. Plantinga if he felt the discovery of belief in God like the Christian God in primitive cultures could be taken as evidence for this view, he agreed that it can. And as I have argued here a couple times before, I think it can.

"And on what basis does he say “there is no Great Pumpkin”?

Presumably, he has no Sensus Cucurbitus Majorus, and does not think anyone else does, either.

"There is a natural tendency among Muslims to accept a God different in nature from the God of Christians: that is the Islamic “basic belief.”

I doubt it. I think, from experience, that most or many Muslims believe in the Creator God in a similar way to Christians, even if they discount evidence that he has revealed himself uniquely in Jesus Christ. (And here, I think Plantinga would also talk about evidence.)

"And how does one adjudicate among competing existence claims—about Jesus versus Mohammed, for example? According to Plantinga, you can’t: each community has its own “basic beliefs” that can’t be argued against. It’s madness. It’s no way to find out what’s true."

Here, again, Dr. Coyne seems simply confused. Alvin Plantinga is not saying that evidence has nothing at all to say about Christian or Muslim beliefs. He is talking specifically about belief in God.

The title of the essay, indeed is "Reason and Belief in God." Philosophers tend in my experience to be careful with words and titles. Much of Coyne's confusion could be cleared up if he simply bothered to read more carefully.

I think that faith in Jesus as Christ can be much more direct than historical skeptics assume, and can in fact sideswipe a lot of the attacks by the Bart Ehrmans and John Crossans of this world. This will be the crux of my contribution to Faith Seeking Understanding.

But that is not because there is no evidence for Jesus, it is because the evidence is plain enough that ordinary readers can easily pick up on it. Even a deer, after all, recognizes a tiger, whether or not he can defend his perception to the American Zoological Association.

The point here, though, is that just because Plantinga claims some parts of the Christian faith may be properly basic to some people, it does not follow that they cannot be rationally questioned, or that other parts may not be properly basic, or to all people.

"What we have instead are such beliefs as:

God is speaking to me

God has created all this,

God disapproves of what I have done,

God forgives me, and

God is to be thanked and praised.

Coyne might, for instance, have noticed that all of these sentences begin with the word "God," not with the words "Jesus Christ."

"Remember, these are incorrigible beliefs: beliefs that it is impossible to hold without them being true! I find this unbelievable, for all the propositions adduced above presume that God exists, so you know who is speaking to you, you know who has created all this, and you know who is forgiving and loving and yet demands to be thanked and praised. How can you use those “basic beliefs” to support the notion that “God exists” if they all presume that God exists? How can you intuit, for example, that “God is to be thanked and praised” unless you have a basic belief that there’s a God in the first place?"

Here is where Dr. Coyne should have paid closer attention to Plantinga's earlier arguments.

My immediate sensory experience might be represented, in Plantinga's terms, as "I am being appeared to treely," or "I am being appeared to aspenly."

It involves an intuitive jump -- not an argument! -- from that appearance, to "An aspen tree is standing in the late February sunshine outside my window."

This would remain the same if I were to cut the tree down and take it en masse to a botanist. "I am being audibly appeared to botanist-calling-it-aspen-ly," might describe my immediate sense impressions. I intuit the botanist's mind, as I intuit the tree itself, by means (in these cases) of sense impressions and rational (but not provable) extrapolation.

Suppose God speaks to humanity through Nature.

How do we know this is not true? How does Coyne know this is not true? It seems to work, for billions of people. And many people for whom it does not seem to work, often seem quite hostile to the idea of God, as St. Paul predicts, like Dr. Coyne himself.

"And of course none of this justifies (nor does Plantinga attempt to justify) the” basic beliefs” in Plantinga’s own brand of Christianity, including his beliefs in the divinity of Jesus and the beneficence of God. Or are those not basic beliefs, but beliefs lifted from scripture?"

That is not the subject of this book. Again, Plantinga nowhere that I know of, claims that every Christian belief is "properly basic."

"To paraphrase Orwell, one has to be a theologian to believe things like this: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

Obviously untrue. Ordinary people do often believe in God as Plantinga describes, and justifiably so, Plantinga is beginning to convince me. Coyne does not seem to have made any arguments that even hint that he is wrong.

Also, again, Dr. Plantinga is a philosopher, not a "theologian."

But if we're looking for Orwell quotes, how about this one?

"For two hundred years we had sawed and sawed and sawed at the branch we were sitting on. And in the end, much more suddenly than anyone had foreseen, our efforst were rewarded, and down we came. But unfortunately there had been a little mistake: The thing at the bottom was not a bed of roses after all; it was a cesspool full of barbed wire . . . It appears that amputation of the soul isn't just a simple surgical job, like having your appendix out. The wound has a tendency to go septic."

Arrogance is, perhaps, the name of the particular form of septus that describes a person who has had success in one field, and then assumes, without warrant, that that success allows him to take on and defeat opponents in entirely unrelated fields, without studying that field first, or even reading his opponent's argument carefully.

And it is multiply clear that Jerry Coyne has not begun to read Alvin Plantinga accurately. He is like Bambi butting his antlers on the bottom of Godzilla's foot, not having even stepped back to survey the entire creature he wants to butt antlers with, before going on the attack.

59 comments:

Anonymous
said...

From Randal Rauser (who had some trouble posting): Good critique David. Coyne's comments are complete garbage. He's a pompous ass who clearly doesn't know the first thing about epistemology. In that regard let me make two observations.

First, he describes Plantinga's work here as "apologetics". It is a sort of apologetics (i.e. negative apologetics, one that removes defeaters to belief). But even more importantly, it is a work of epistemology. Yes Plantinga rejects evidentialism here, and epistemological internalism more generally. But by doing so he is simply following the trend of epistemology over the last forty years. This all traces to several problems with traditional internalism, most particularly the Gettier problem. Beginning in the late 1960s a growing number of philosophers led by Alvin Goldman have proposed externalist epistemologies which eschew any commitment to traditional evidentialism. Plantinga's project fits within that wider trend. Since this paper (originally published in 1983) he went on to develop his unique form of externalism as proper functionalism.

Plantinga's proper functionalism dovetails nicely with his Christianity, and in that sense it is apologetic. But so what? Robert Nozick is an atheist and his truth-tracking externalist theory of epistemic warrant dovetails nicely with his atheism. Does Coyne chastise Nozick as a result?

"So what scientific reason can there be for singling out just one species as the Designer's goal? How do we know that the goal was not butterflies or sunflowers?"

I've seen this move again and again, and it always strikes me as godawful stupid. Not just because of the 'scientific' problem you pointed out, but the following: why is it assumed that A) God could have only one goal, or B) that the Christian God only had one goal? I read Genesis and see God calling His work 'good' even before life is on the scene - certainly when life other than man is on the scene.

This idea that God's concern must be with humanity exclusively always struck me as wrongheaded.

I would link to this response in Coyne's post to get his feedback. Personally I find his arguments to be entirely rational. This is a long post and I don't have much time tonight so I will address two issues that jumped out at me.

You object to Coyne's statement that there is “no good empirical evidence for God's existence.” No one has to ask every person on the planet or check every planet to see there is no evidence of any god. This planet is after all the planet that was supposedly blessed with god's creation so why would we think there were evidence of god on other planets? Even if we were to consider this argument no satellite has sent back pictures of a large bearded man on a dust cloud yet around other planets.

Not your argument that all cultures share a common god belief again.... Noooo! Hang me! Please! Seriously now. Many primitive cultures worshiped not a personal god but one that didn't care about them; others believed in a god that was evil; others believed in a god who had created them but didn't know and didn't care about how that creation happened. There is a lot of diversity in regards to religious belief. It's straight up loony how you try to pass off these beliefs that are vastly different and contradictory as being somehow the same.

Crude: It did occur to me afterwards to say, "It may be that God created the universe because he likes petunias. But it seems more likely that he created it because he likes Pascal." But you're right that it would be wrong to presume God's intent and pleasure too much. The point here being, that Pascal is surely right in seeing reason as a glorious thing, and therefore man (woman) as of more intrinsic importance than critters lower down on the evolutionary rung, and anyone who can't see that is making himself more of a dang fool than he has any right to be.

Anon: Some of Coyne's errors are indisputable, I think, including the farcically sloppy accounting he gives of Plantinga's arguments, as detailed above.

Coyne does not know, and cannot know, that "there is no good empirical evidence for God's existence," even on this planet. (Though why we should limit it to this one, you have given no real reason -- God need not, by definition, favour our planet over others. You are assuming a particular understanding of God's work, which may not be warranted, theism per se being the issue, here.)

Suppose God did raise someone from the dead. Suppose it was someone twenty kilometers outside of Xining, Qinghai Province, China. Suppose 500 hundred people witnessed this event, and some wrote down their accounts, in Amdo Tibetan and Chinese. Suppose these documents were buried in a cave, yet to be excavated, two hundred years ago.

What does Dr. Coyne know about such things? Has he falsified even the first-hand miracle stories I personally have run across, from credible, intelligent, observant, apparently honest witnesses?

He would have to be God to know these stories are false. And I don't think that's the case.

Well, my point isn't only that (as you say) Coyne is being presumptuous with what God's intentions with creation are. It's that, at least where Christianity is concerned, it seems clear that God had multiple goals in creation - and clearly, in a broader sense, any God could have multiple goals. Yet Coyne is trying to find THE/A Goal, to the exclusion of all other goals. And that seems like a false dichotomy.

Anonymous,

I don't think David makes the argument that 'all cultures share a common god belief'. He does persuasively argue that there is an exceptionally common belief about God that is found over a wide range of cultures, and he cites - if I understand him right - this presence of belief as evidence for God. Which seems not only correct, but powerful.

Regarding "empirical evidence for God's existence", what would qualify? I'd say you were joking when you talked about "large bearded man on a dust cloud", but if you think that's the case you're running with a defective concept of God. Even the mormons, who have a materialist view of God, deny that view according to my understanding.

I'd simply point out that Coyne has no idea what "empirical evidence for God's existence" would look like, and that you shouldn't confuse "events that could take place that Coyne would personally ascribe to God" with "empirical evidence for God's existence". Even you seem not to know what such evidence would look like - see the 'bearded man sitting around' quip again.

Oh, I didn't catch that business about "all cultures sharing a common god belief." Thanks for correcting Anon on that one. No, Crude is right, that isn't my argument. Apparently Anon has not read it enough times, yet, since he/ she is still misreading it.

Of course Coyne can know whether or not there is good evidence for god. He is an evolutionary biologist and one example of an argument for god is design but we see no design in nature. He is more than qualified to make judgments on this issue in particular. That is one argument that has been deflated. Of course there are others but they are just as bad as the one from design.

Given the fact that there has yet to be any confirmed supernatural event it is these anonymous people's job to prove their claims are even worth taking seriously. These people may be intelligent but that doesn't mean they were not honestly mistaken. This is not proof of god.

Crude

You wrote “I don't think David makes the argument that 'all cultures share a common god belief'. He does persuasively argue that there is an exceptionally common belief about God that is found over a wide range of cultures, and he cites - if I understand him right - this presence of belief as evidence for God. Which seems not only correct, but powerful.”

This is the arguments of David's I was referring to and I mentioned why it failed. There isn't nearly as much agreement as he alleges.

This is the arguments of David's I was referring to and I mentioned why it failed. There isn't nearly as much agreement as he alleges.

I fail to see where you've shown that. David himself will grant the differences between the religions, as I've seen him do in every discussion I've seen him bring this up in (I'm currently working through a book of his where, I think, he gives this a much more serious treatment.) They don't serve to refute his arguments.

He is an evolutionary biologist and one example of an argument for god is design but we see no design in nature. He is more than qualified to make judgments on this issue in particular.

This is a common misunderstanding, but it reduces to a bad joke. So Coyne, in part of his education or even work, is trained 'How to identify God's design in nature', and lo and behold, it's absent?

Sorry, but no.

The closest Coyne gets to that is declaring "If it evolved, God didn't design it! It evolved, therefore there's no design!" This is rife with problems, not the least of which is that evolution, demonstrably, is used by agents as a design tool.

Given the fact that there has yet to be any confirmed supernatural event

Says who? First of all, simply defining what is or isn't a "supernatural event" is exceptionally difficult - and in science itself, this simply is not done. Second, there are plenty of 'confirmed events' that are arguably best attributable to the work of a God. These events are disputed, but the mere presence of those events would skunk the 'no empirical evidence for God' claim.

Coyne is out of his league here and getting thrashed. Not surprising, considering he's out of his expertise and avowedly doesn't care to read up on all this very much, but I wouldn't hitch your cart to his horse.

Sorry, Anon, but that is just silly. Coyne has every right to opinions on ID, sloppily as he sometimes expresses them. But obviously there are many other kinds of evidence claimed besides ID, on which Coyne has no special expertise. If he were to say, "I know of no evidence for God," and supposing Plantinga's arguments about basicality to be wrong, it might indeed be "up to" theists to present evidence to show there is a God. But Coyne takes the burden of proof on himself, with his unsupported, and unsupportable, universal negative claim. It is a foolish way of talking, which philosophers might cure him of, if he had the humility to learn from them. It is particularly foolish, given what astronomers who lean skeptical suppose now about a Multiverse engineered to produce every possible entity.

I think Coyne just means that we have no good empirical evidence for God’s existence. Such good empirical evidence may exist out there under a mountain somewhere, or in another galaxy, but, if it does, then we don’t know about it.

To some extent Plantinga must agree with Coyne here – if there were good, public available evidence for God’s existence, or good publicly available arguments for God’s existence, then Plantinga would not need to argue that belief in God is, for some, “properly basic” without evidence – the evidence or arguments would suffice on their own. As it is, Platinga holds that Christian belief can be “warranted” for those who have been moved by the Holy Spirit, even if there is no other evidence or arguments for it.

Of course, for people like me who have remained cheerfully unmoved and unmolested by the Holy Spirit, belief in God is not going to be “properly basic”.

Brian: Even that would be grossly overstepping his epistemological warrant. How could he possibly know "we" (meaning himself and everyone else on the planet, including me, and the former Muslim imam and doctoral student at Oxford who converted to Christ after God spoke to him audibly, and people who recall being instantly healed of crippling or deadly diseases) have no evidence for God?

If Coyne wants to play with the philosophical big boys, he'd better learn how to express himself for carefully.

Your argument is also a non sequitur, and I think you know better. Plantinga is a philosopher, not a rhetorician or preacher. That he argues for the proper basicality of faith in God, does not in the slightest indicate that he agrees there is no evidence for God. That's Coyne's mistake, and I think you're smarter than him, and know better. Also, your term "moved by the Holy Spirit" seems (subjectively, to me) may beg the question . . . not that you say this, but I seem to hear you thinking, "Yeah, like Joseph Smith's 'warming of the bossom,' and every crackpot Beatles Indian guru." But the nature of Plantinga's actual argument does something to defuse such responses, I think.

Note that Paul / Calvin / Plantinga also have a possible explanation for your state, and the state of other "cheerful" (and perhaps even more, cheerless) unbelievers. Though Plantinga, being careful, speaks of it in theoretical tones, and also applying it to some extent to his own case.

I actually think Plantinga comes close to stating the best argument for believing in God: Many if not most humans have a natural tendency to believe in God (or to have religious or supernatural beliefs of that kind), and it’s plausible to think that those humans are on the whole better off believing in God or having such religious\supernatural beliefs – they are happier, their lives are more meaningful, they have the hope of a life to come, perhaps they behave better than they otherwise would, and so on. Therefore they are justified in holding those religious beliefs, even if there is little or no good evidence for those beliefs (or if the “evidence” that does exist is seriously contested and seems very dubious to lots and lots of reasonable people). Provided there is no conclusive evidence disproving their religious beliefs, then they are arguably justified in believing them, based on hope or faith or personal experience.

In contrast, there exists in human nature no natural tendency to believe in the Great Pumpkin (or whatever) and believing in the Great Pumpkin makes no difference to a person’s life one way or another – we have no examples of people wanting to believe it, of believing it making people happier, of it giving their lives more meaning, of it making them behave better and so on. In these respects, belief in the Great Pumpkin is very, very different from belief in God, and is NOT justifiable in the way that belief in God might be justifiable.

But there is such a thing as external evidence - like scientific evidence, for example – that does not depend on dubious claims of private experiences, like claims of the Holy Spirit coming upon one, or hearing voices in your head, or what have you. Now, people might have personal experiences of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and hear voices in their heads, and so on, but that is not the same as publicly verifiable, external evidence.

I suppose Calvin would say that the reason I don’t hear voices in my head is because I am not one of the “elect” and thus face an eternity of damnation and suffering in hell.

I fail to see where you've shown that. David himself will grant the differences between the religions, as I've seen him do in every discussion I've seen him bring this up in (I'm currently working through a book of his where, I think, he gives this a much more serious treatment.) They don't serve to refute his arguments.

If you couldn't see this then you need to learn to read. I provided evidence that not all people believe in an entity like the Christian god. David's argument is that god belief is more likely true given the fact that there are many cultures will similar beliefs in god but this not true as I have said.

This is a common misunderstanding, but it reduces to a bad joke. So Coyne, in part of his education or even work, is trained 'How to identify God's design in nature', and lo and behold, it's absent?

There have been no concrete arguments from design, no. All proposals have been shot down by actual scientists.

Says who? First of all, simply defining what is or isn't a "supernatural event" is exceptionally difficult - and in science itself, this simply is not done. Second, there are plenty of 'confirmed events' that are arguably best attributable to the work of a God. These events are disputed, but the mere presence of those events would skunk the 'no empirical evidence for God' claim.

Says the vast majority of evidence against such experiences. There have been no confirmed events. You're being awfully vague here...

"Third, how dare we be so condescending? I don't have faith. I really don't. Rowan Williams does as do many of my fellow philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (a Protestant) and Ernan McMullin (a Catholic). I think they are wrong; they think I am wrong. But they are not stupid or bad or whatever. If I needed advice about everyday matters, I would turn without hesitation to these men. We are caught in opposing Kuhnian paradigms. I can explain their faith claims in terms of psychology; they can explain my lack of faith claims also probably partly through psychology and probably theology also. (Plantinga, a Calvinist, would refer to original sin.) I just keep hearing Cromwell to the Scots. "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." I don't think I am wrong, but the worth and integrity of so many believers makes me modest in my unbelief."

A disproportionate number of the prominent atheists are biologists, rather than physicists, chemists, geologists or historians. Why is that? I'd say it's because some religious people made the mistake of trying to attack and undermine biology. Sure, Dawkins has always been an atheist, but biology was the focus of his books until recently, since that is what he truly loves. Persistent attacks on biology by religious creationists and "intelligent designers" is what has pushed many of these biologists into being so hostile towards religion. If a lot of religious people started trying to undermine plate tectonics, for example, then I think you would find that many geologists would start to become celebrity atheists. Who is going to come out worse from this battle, the theory of evolution or religion? My guess is religion. It was a strategic blunder for religious people to make implacable enemies of so many highly intelligent biologists. If these religious people had just said "evolution and religion are compatible" they could have saved themselves an awful lot of grief!

Brian: That's your argument, not Plantinga's, but I guess I can see some commonality.

The funny thing is, in your second-to-last post, you seem to be criticizing theists for NOT giving evidence, then in the last post, FOR giving evidence.

Behe argues the way he does, not out of strategic considerations, and certainly not to "attack biology," but as a biologist, following what he thinks (and argues) is the evidence. I think your psychology of the matter is implausible, on both sides. On the atheist side, in fact lots of people make theistic arguments from astronomy and physics. There are a few angry atheists in those fields, too, but I don't think as many as in biology.

So what's the real difference? I think atheists tend to get into biology more in the first place, and in some other fields like psychology and anthropology, more than into other fields.

Anyway, stars don't shed blood, which maybe makes it easier to think of God when we look at them, as opposed, say, to a pack of wolves taking down a moose calf. There's my shot at psychobabble for the day.

Anon: "If you couldn't see this then you need to learn to read. I provided evidence that not all people believe in an entity like the Christian god. David's argument is that god belief is more likely true given the fact that there are many cultures will similar beliefs in god but this not true as I have said."

You're changing how you describe my argument, now. So why should you accuse Crude of reading poorly? Why not accuse yourself, rather, of writing inaccurately, the first time? (And here, rather sloppily -- in general, if you write more carefully, you'll have more warrant for complaining if people misunderstand you.)

No, I don't claim that "all cultures share a common god (sic) belief."

Yes, I do think it is more likely true because many cultures do share a coherent idea of one God. How is this premise wrong, exactly? What about it do you claim is "not true?"

"There are a few angry atheists in those fields, too, but I don't think as many as in biology"

Yeah, but that's because so many religious people keep on attacking biology. If they were attacking astronomy or quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity, then a lot more physicists would start becoming angry atheists as well. Seriously, most scientists are just obsessed with their own little thing and don't give a damn about anything outside it, as long as they are left alone to get on with it. They are fairly limited people. But if other people start sticking their noses into it with, for example, "ID", which is nothing but a big steaming pile of useless horse manure, then scientists will lash out.

Well look, if religious people want to peddle ID and attack biology then that is their decision. All I'm doing is pointing out that it won't end well for them. How much ground have biologists yielded so far? Do you get a sense that ID is gaining traction among biologists? Of course not. ID is not science. ID is not even religion. Religion is something worthwhile and venerable and serious. In contrast, ID is a gargantuan pile of total and utter crap. If they embrace it, all religious people are doing here is making fools of themselves, discrediting their religion and turning themselves into a laughing stock.

Everything I know about ID screams "this is rubbish" and basically every reputable biologist and scientist in the entire world agrees with me, and i have yet to hear anyone make a remotely plausible case for it. Given all this, what reason do I have to take it seriously? Time is limited, and a reasonable person has to draw the line somewhere. i'd be far more likely to agree that God exists, or that Jesus is God, than i would to be to agree that ID is science. How many books about flat-earthism and astrology have you read? Does that mean you are in no position to make a judgement that astrology is not astronomy and flat-earth ism not geology. Please David. Please.

Brian: You seem to assume that my goal is to protect God. If God is worried, He has more resources and experience than I, and can probably handle that job better.

I think Behe is, and know I am, genuinely curious about how living things came into being. I don't argue for God from ID, because I think there are better arguments, and ID doesn't solve the big atheist response -- the Problem of Pain. But I do think it is worth pointing to the hysteria, often based on false premises and bad arguments, with which so many of the "elite" has responded to ID. This often has not only comic, but also educational, value. And as a lover of freedom, I don't like being bullied, as so many of these people seem to like to do. "Treat Behe seriously, and we'll ostracize you, call you a snake-handling hillbilly, etc. etc."

Origins are too interesting than to care about that, compared to the actual scientific (and other) evidence. Sure, we might make mistakes. But if God is afraid our arguments are undermining faith in Him, He can always move a few stars around to spell out a few key Hebrew phrases, and everyone will forget about those silly American hillbillies and their curiosity about complex micro-organs in the cell. But I appreciate your concern.

Historians ostracise holocaust deniers. Geologists ostracise flat-earthers. Astronomers ostracise astrologists. Some people richly deserve to be ostracised, and are not worth defending even if you don't like bullies.

Biologists are not going to give an inch to this laughable attack on their science. I'm telling you, Dawkins and co. will accept Christ as their personal saviour long before they will ever accept that creationism or ID are science.

Brian: You've already essentially conceded that you don't know enough to judge the merits of the ID case. What does your calling it a "laughable attack on science" signify, once you've admitted that? This comes across as empty rhetoric.

As a matter of fact, I've just put together a book coming out later this year, called Faith Seeking Understanding. I asked a Christian biologist who happens to oppose ID to write a chapter on understanding origins from a Christian perspective, and he wrote a very thoughtful and interesting piece. But I also asked an astronomer associated with ID to write about his work, and also about the attacks on him from bigots in the academy (largely led, it seems, by someone in the Religious Studies Department, as a matter of fact.) Let a hundred flowers blossom. Let the New Atheists hold their witchhunts: maybe we Christians can model open-mindedness and civil discourse for them.

Yes i do. You don't need to be an "expert" on holocaust denial to know that it's bunk - you just need to know a bit about history. You don't need to be an "expert" on flat-earthism to know that it's bunk - you just need to know a bit about geology. And you don't need to be an "expert" on ID to know that the whole thing is drivel - you just need to know some biology. There is nothing "open-minded" about defending stupidity and pseudoscience, or lending support to attacks on science and rationality.

Anyway, we've probably now spent too much time talking about this. Hopefully we can turn our attention to something that is actually worth discussing,

That's fine, it's not the topic of this thread, anyway. But I have to admit I'm startled by the vehemence of your opinion about ID. Michael Behe is certainly no Henry Morris, and the fact that no biological entity contains evidence of intelligent design is not as obvious as the sphericity of the Earth, or the recent death of 12 million innocents. In fact, it would seem to involve asserting a universal negative, again, which are tricky things. If you don't mind my asking, how did you attain such certainty?

You two aren't actually going to play this game are you? Someone proposes a counter-argument against something you've written and in response you argue that I'm attacking a strawman. OK, fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Assuming I am wrong (I don't think I am but for the sake of fairness I'll say I am) please present the argument to me in its correct form so we can continue the discussion.

From a PHILOSOPHICAL or THEOLOGICAL point of view, intelligent design can be understood as the position that this universe was created by a conscious, intelligent designer. Regardless of whether one agrees with this philosophical\theological idea, it is an ancient and respectable intellectual position, with a long and venerable history of arguments to back it up. Unfortunately, it is probably no longer possible to use the term “intelligent design” to refer to this position, since the term has now been hi-jacked by an appalling rabble of cranks and frauds.

From a HISTORICAL point of view, intelligent design can be understood as the contemporary equivalent of the religious geocentrism (i.e. the notion that the earth is the centre of the universe and that the planets and the stars revolve around the earth). You will recall that the refusal by church authorities to embrace science and reject geocentrism fatally undermined and weakened Christian intellectual authority, and, as a result of this decision, Christianity has arguably never recovered its pre-eminent intellectual position.. In so far as “intelligent design” becomes associated with Christianity, the same thing will now happen again. The first time it was a tragedy. This time it will just be a farce.

From a broadly POLITICAL point of view, “intelligent design” is the attempt to interject superstition and supernaturalism into biological science. It would be analogous to an attempt to interject, say, astrology into astronomy – something that would correctly and justifiably be resisted and rejected by astronomers, just as biologists correctly and justifiably resist and reject “intelligent design”.

From a strictly SCIENTIFIC point of view, “intelligent design” is too incoherent and irrational to be meaningfully defined. Since each proponent of ID is a crank with his own personal private “theory”, the term does not refer to anything scientific. In scientific terms, ID does not actually mean anything. It is gibberish. Maybe, I’m wrong about this, so if you have a coherent and meaningful definition, feel free to share it with us.

Four attempts at definition and they're... wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Bad move.

I repeat: I don't think ID is science. I have some considerable disagreements with ID. But I did so after reading up on what the claims of ID are - what ID proponents claim themselves claim, not caricatures I picked up third-hand - to reach this point.

So let's try it again. The ID movement has some identifiable, prominent leaders - William Dembski, Michael Behe, etc. What would be an example of the central ID claim in their view? Can you even get within the ballpark on this one?

You haven’t argued why anything I said in my last post was “wrong”, so I’ll just ignore that.

I’m glad you agree that ID is not science. As long as ID does not claim to be science then I don’t have much issue with it – if ID acknowledges that it is pseudoscience, with the same intellectual status as alternative medicine, UFO studies and astrology, then even better. People should be free to pursue their ID interests if they wish – just as people should be free to spend their time searching for evidence that biological entities were created by leprechauns and faeries, if that is what floats their boats.

Dembski rejects common descent, so I guess this is an ID “theory”. Behe’s definition of is loose enough so that astrology also qualifies as a “theory”, just like intelligent design is a “theory”. These two men appear to be the two “leading proponents” of ID. I dread to think what the rest of this bunch of clowns thinks about anything.

Brian: You should do better than that. You're just repeating an immensely stupid "gotcha" talking point from anti-ID spin about the Jones trial, without trying to understanding even Behe's point at the time (which is rather prosaic, in context), let alone Behe's actual arguments for ID.

Dembski, I don't much care for, myself.

But it's easy to define ID: it is simply the assertion that biological forms give evidence of having been designed, at least in part, by (an) intelligent agent (s). And I think that covers all the ID theorists.

OK. Thus far, no one has scientifically established that any biological phenomenon has been designed by an intelligent agent, and nor have they come up with any good scientific evidence that any biological entity has been designed by an intelligent agent (except maybe for stuff that humans have done through genetic engineering, artificial selection etc.). So all claims that this or that biological phenomenon was intelligently designed have no scientific validity at all (although people might have good philosophical or theological reasons for holding that view).

You haven’t argued why anything I said in my last post was “wrong”, so I’ll just ignore that.

You provided a long, barely cohesive ramble, and didn't provide anything close to a definition of "ID" as its own proponents claim it to be. Yes, it's wrong. I know, because I've actually read the writings of ID proponents. If you think you're right, more power to you.

Thus far, no one has scientifically established that any biological phenomenon has been designed by an intelligent agent,

The good people at Monsanto would like a word with you.

Let me ask again: "The ID movement has some identifiable, prominent leaders - William Dembski, Michael Behe, etc. What would be an example of the central ID claim in their view? Can you even get within the ballpark on this one?"

I'm guessing, in response to my last question, no. Even with David's quick summary, you have zero idea - none, nyet - what ID proponents actually say, what their basic claims are, much less what Behe or Dembski in particular say. What you mostly know can be summed up as this: "A lot of Christians like them and they criticize Darwinism. Grr. GRR!!!" ;)

David,

But it's easy to define ID: it is simply the assertion that biological forms give evidence of having been designed, at least in part, by (an) intelligent agent (s). And I think that covers all the ID theorists.

Actually, I think even this claim isn't completely accurate. ID, as far as I'm aware, doesn't limit itself to biological forms - hence Guillermo Gonzalez and the emphasis on cosmology, etc. But yeah, most of what you hear about ID relates to biology.

I'll give a fuller definition after Brian attempts an answer. Because as near as I can tell, as I've said, he knows next to nothing about ID other than he knows he should dislike it and it for whatever reason drives him bonkers.

Brian: I would have to question both your premises (or one of them) and your conclusion. First, how do you know no one has found any good scientific evidence for that? I assume you're better-informed than Crude thinks, but you'd have to be marvellously well-informed to be able to assert that with due authority.

And second, it's not at all00 obvious that your conclusion follows from your premises.

Crude: Yes, I know, Gonzalez is also contributing a chapter. But usually those kinds of arguments are kept on a different shelf.

David, I don't know for sure that no one has good scientific evidence for the theory that butterflies were designed by a committee of leprechauns and fairies ... Maybe someone does have good evidence and i don't know about it. And I don't know for sure that no one out there has good scientific evidence that this or that biological entity was intelligently designed. But if the evidence exists, then I don't know about it. Also, nearly all professional biologists agree that no such scientific evidence is known. That's not conclusive, but it's a pretty strong basis to go on. So, unless you or Crude can provide some good scientific evidence that a biological entity was created intelligently (leaving aside the human examples I referred to earlier, of course) then I am fully justified in saying that no such evidence exists.

And if we have no good scientific evidence to back up a claim, then the claim has no scientific validity (even if the claim happens to be true).

All right, Brian, I won't torture you over the issue. Seems like a lot of certainty based on a lot of confessed ignorance, but at least you're more reasonable in admitting a looser epistemology than some atheists of my acquaintance. As Aristotle said, we do depend on the "old, wise and skilful" in our polis for much of what we "know," or think we know. So I won't try to argue you out of the lynch mob.

I've given my reasons why I do not take ID seriously and you have not pointed out anything incorrect in anything I have said. Nor have you given me any reason to take ID seriously. In fact, in perhaps your one substantive comment about this so far, you have given me a reason NOT to take it seriously. You have stated that ID is not science, in your view. So if it's not science, then what exactly is it? And why should I take it any more seriously than astrology, holocaust denial, UFO sightings, alternative medicine and so on?

As I said previously, you don't need to read a lot of books by holocaust deniers to know what it is and to know that it's bunk - you just need to know a bit about history. You don't need to read a lot of books about flat-earthism to know that it's bunk - you just need to know a bit about geology. And you don't need to read a lot of books about ID to know that the whole thing is drivel - you just need to know some biology. So unless you can give me a good reason for thinking that ID is in someway different from all these other crank theories, I am fully justified in holding the views about it that I do.

Brian: You seem to have missed the fine shading, here. Neither Crude nor myself is, in fact, an advocate of ID. Our difference appears to be that both of us have more respect for (in my case) Michael Behe, than you do. Also that we seem to know more about the subject. (And also, yes, that we may be more open to it, somewhat.)

Unlike Crude, I think Michael Behe advances what is, in fact, a clear and reasonable scientific argument. He may be wrong. My objections are more theological, believe it or not -- but they are not insurmountable.

So I'm at odds with all the world on this -- I'm friendly on scientific grounds, unfriendly on theological grounds.

As for scientific evidence, again, Michael Behe is the go-to guy, not me. And no, I don't mean court transcripts, or garbled quotes from court transcripts, or even hostile attacks out of context of his rebuttals of said attacks. I'm cool with a robust scientific debate on both sides. I've already explained why Flat Earthism is a bogus parallel.

Both you and crude are more sympathetic to ID than I am and have read lots of books by its leading proponents, and even with this, neither of you are ID advocates and both of you are very careful to make that absolutely clear. Well, if EVEN YOU GUYS aren't advocates, despite the fact that you know all about it, and are sympathetic to it, then, as far as I am concerned, that is YET ANOTHER REASON not to take it seriously, along with all the other reasons I have.

You have a nasty habit of pretending you've handled something, when then only thing you're handling is yourself. So to speak. ;)

I've given my reasons why I do not take ID seriously and you have not pointed out anything incorrect in anything I have said.

"What you've said" has mostly been a crazy, angry rant. It falls on its own terms. And anyone who's actually bothered to read what ID Proponents themselves have to say is going to see as much. The fact that you are utterly incapable of describing the claims of ID proponents as they see them speaks volumes. You haven't read their books. You haven't bothered to read what they think. You compare them to holocaust deniers, announce that you don't need to read anything to know they're wrong, and that's that. It's hilarious.

Go ahead, keep up with the internet wharblegarble, the atheist equivalent of 'mah pappy dun told me ain't nothin' worth nothin' in them thar ID books' - all I wanted to do is verify that you haven't a clue about ID, and man, that's been verified in spades. It's every bit as sad as watching a hardened creationist scream about the falsity of evolution, and when you ask them what 'natural selection' means they insist that they don't need to know. Brilliant.

Since you've been grasping for comparisons like this, let me offer one: the fact that I reject ID, yet I think your reasoning is ridiculous, should give you pause about whether you know much of anything about the topic. So far your "best" argument here is that it's so obvious ID (which you can't even define) is wrong, that you don't need to know anything about it, much less read the writings of scientists you're certain are incorrect. How rational! ;)

David,

I think Behe's criticisms of Darwinism are valid and reasonable - but merely criticizing neo-Darwinism isn't sufficient to make one an ID proponent. (Otherwise James Shapiro and Lynn Margulis, among others, are ID proponents.) It's where Behe starts to not just infer design, but argue that this inference is scientific, that I pause. I don't think inferences for or against design are scientific.

Brian can remain in complete ignorance of what he screams about if he so chooses. He's just one guy on the internet, and sadly, that sort of "I dun even gots ta read 'bout it ta know I dun believe in alla that" attitude is all too common.

Ok david, in order to try and bring this to some sort of conclusion, I'll concede that Behe's argument is probably better than that of your average astrologist or flat-earther, based on the fact that you find something commendable in his argument :-)

"You have a nasty habit of pretending you've handled something, when then only thing you're handling is yourself."

What do you mean "pretend"? Directly after I said "Thus far, no one has scientifically established that any biological phenomenon has been designed by an intelligent agent" I immediately went on to say, "except maybe for stuff that humans have done through genetic engineering, artificial selection etc." What exactly did I not handle here? Where is the pretence? Where is the nastiness? Where is the onanism? Remind me again why the good people at Monsanto would like a word with me about all this? You claim to have read a bunch of books about ID, but given that you don't appear to have even read, or at least taken in, the posts I have written during this very discussion, I have to wonder what exactly "read" means in this case.

And what have i said that is crazy? The fact that you have read a lot of books about ID and rejected it, is not a reason to take it seriously. And despite what you think, I am familiar with the central ideas (irreducible complexity, specified complexity, yahdahyahdahyahdah) and don't find them convincing. And neither do you. So where does that leave us?

What the hell does this mean? There are thousands of crank theories about stuff out there and it would take more than a life-time to exhaustively 'investigate' them all. How many books about astrology have you read? Or ufos? Or Scientology? Well, unless you've read every book written about them all, I sure hope you don't have any views about them, because that would mean you've made up your mind about these things without properly "investigating" them, even though you know nothing, nada, nyet about any of them! How closed-minded of you!

Crude: To be fair, I have seen Brian back up his views on other subjects well, from time to time. He has almost convinced me that radical Muslims are not going to overrun Western Europe as quickly as I thought, for instance. Nor does he always toe the "New Atheist" line. I found the comments about ID all the more remarkable, because the only topic he usually sounds like that on, is politics.

You claim to have read a bunch of books about ID, but given that you don't appear to have even read, or at least taken in, the posts I have written during this very discussion, I have to wonder what exactly "read" means in this case.

Yeah, I have little doubt that what it means to "read up on what you're criticizing" eludes you, considering your behavior in this thread, on this topic. You're the one who matched 'I haven't even really read what they said' with 'But I'm absolutely, positively sure they're not only wrong, but utterly stupid and evil, on the order of being comparable to holocaust deniers'.

Yeah, pardon me if I'm not impressed with your reasoning skills on this front.

And what have i said that is crazy?

Your general reaction and tone? The hilarious overreaction to the very topic? The lack of understanding? Oh boy, I see you said the words 'irreducible complexity' finally - I'm glad to know that Google works on your computer. ;)

There are thousands of crank theories about stuff out there and it would take more than a life-time to exhaustively 'investigate' them all.

As a matter of fact, if I haven't read up on a theory or idea, I tend to keep my mouth shut about it. I certainly don't run around comparing its proponents to holocaust deniers or the obviously deluded. Especially if I can't even coherently state what they actually take themselves to be proposing.

I know, I know - it's a crazy belief I have. This idea that A) if I declare a group of people to be wrong, hilariously wrong, and wicked besides, I should actually read what they have to say first or moderate my comments, and B) just because someone agrees with me, it doesn't mean their agreement was the result of particularly rational insight, or indeed, any insight at all. I happen to disagree with, say... Lubos Motl about the status of String Theory. If you told me Motl is wrong on String Theory because he's a right-winger who denies the reality of global warming, yeah, don't be surprised if I say your rejection of String Theory was pathetic. It's not like I'm a member of the ID Haters club, and all you have to do is say "ID Sucks!" to join.

David,

To be fair, I have seen Brian back up his views on other subjects well, from time to time. He has almost convinced me that radical Muslims are not going to overrun Western Europe as quickly as I thought, for instance.

No doubt he has. I'd absolutely concede that Brian sets himself apart from the general Cult of Gnu antics. But here? On this subject? He's flipped. He's literally taking the position that it's A-OK to compare ID proponents to holocaust deniers, *without even having read their books or being able to coherently state what they see themselves as advocating*, apparently on little grounds beyond 'I just know they must be wrong' and 'I feel real, real strongly about this'.

Meanwhile he's shocked that I find that kind of "reasoning" deplorable, because hey, I reject ID too so clearly that means everything must be okay? This reeks of the sort of reasoning where what matters most is getting people to say "I accept evolution". Sure, they may not be able to coherently describe natural selection, they may think the X-men constitute a stellar fictional example of Darwinism, but they said they accept evolution so they get a cookie. It's bad reasoning.

But, out of respect for you, I'll dial it back. Really, I don't have to say the emperor has no clothes here, because he's naked and spinning around while screaming his head off.

You both seem to be making the point that someone who has read the most well-known books about ID is more qualified, or more likely to be qualified, to make a reliable judgement about ID than someone who has not read any of those books. What could be more obvious than this, right? Somebody who has gone to the trouble of actually reading the most important books about a particular topic is surely in a better position to have confident views about it than someone who has not read those books? Well, actually, no. That is not necessarily the case at all. In fact, the point you have both being trying to make is completely untrue and entirely bogus, as I will now conclusively demonstrate (hold on to your seats!):

Let’s start with an easy one for you guys: Who is more likely to make a reliable judgement about the Book of Mormon, someone who has actually read the Book of Mormon from start to finish OR someone who has never even read a single page of the Book of Mormon? The answer, amazingly, is: someone who has never read a single page of the Book of Mormon. How is this possible? Because someone who has read the Book of Mormon from start to finish is very likely to be a believing Mormon, and therefore to believe (incorrectly) that the Book of Mormon is the revealed word of God. In contrast, someone who has never read a single page of the Book of Mormon is likely to hold the (correct) view that it is NOT the revealed word of God. So there you have it – someone who knows NOTHING AT ALL about the Book of Mormon is much more likely to make a reliable judgement about it than someone who knows all about it! Who’d have thunk it?

Who is more likely to have reliable views about Scientology, someone who has read, absorbed and pondered all the central texts of Scientology, or some random person on the street who knows virtually nothing about Scientology? The answer, again, is that the random person on the street who knows virtually nothing about Scientology is much more likely to make a reliable call on Scientology, than the person who is an expert on all the central texts of Scientology.

Let’s go on. Who is more likely to have reliable views about UFOs, someone who has read all the books about UFO sightings, or someone who has never read a single book about it? Answer: someone who has never read a single book about it, because someone who has read a lot of books about it is likely to be a crackpot who thinks that there have been lots of established UFO sightings.

Let’s try a slightly more tricky one: who is more likely to have reliable views about Holocaust Denial, someone who has read all the books advocating Holocaust Denial, OR someone who has never read a single book advocating Holocaust Denial, but lots of books about the Holocaust and WWII? The answer: the person who has never read a single book advocating Holocaust Denial. Why? Because a person who has read all the books advocating Holocaust Denial is more likely to be a Holocaust Denier than someone who has read no books about it.

Now, who is more likely to have reliable views about Intelligent Design, someone who has read all the books by leading ID proponents, or someone who has never read those books, but who has read quite a few books about biology and evolution? The answer: the person who has never read any books advocating intelligent design, but who has read lots of books about biology, is more likely to have reliable views about Intelligent Design.

So there you go – contrary to what you have both been arguing, it is not at all the case that people who have read the books about a particular topic are better qualified to make reliable judgements about it, or to hold reliable views about it.

Crude paraphrases me like this: “I'm absolutely, positively sure they're not only wrong, but utterly stupid and evil, on the order of being comparable to holocaust deniers'.”

I want to clarify this, for fear that there might be some misunderstanding about it. I wasn’t comparing ID proponents to holocaust deniers in any moral sense. Clearly, there is no moral comparison to be made here. I was just using holocaust denial to illustrate a point. Although, to the extent that most professional historians view holocaust denial with the same level of respect that most professional biologists view Intelligent Design, there IS a legitmate comparison to be made here, from an intellectual perspective, though not a moral one – intellectually speaking, ID is no more respectable than holocaust denial.

So there you go – contrary to what you have both been arguing, it is not at all the case that people who have read the books about a particular topic are better qualified to make reliable judgements about it, or to hold reliable views about it.

Let's run with this logic, Brian.

Who's more likely to have a reasonable opinion about evolutionary biology? The person who has studied evolutionary biology for years, reading all manner of books and detailed technical manuals about the subject? Or the person who has never read a book about evolutionary biology?

Well, clearly the person who never read a book about evolutionary biology. The person who spent years reading books about evolutionary biology probably is an evolutionary biologist, and thus has a financial, intellectual and personal stake in the subject, and thus come to the table with a wildly biased view.

Utter nonsense, of course (I'll spare repeats for everything from philosophical atheism to physics), but there's your logic. And that's really not even the worst excess of your reasoning: apparently, you can 'just tell' what's true or false in advance of reading up on anything, according to... either some personal nigh-infallibility, or an assumption that you've talked with people who are nigh-infallible.

Worse, not only can you 'just know' what the right view is about something, without ever having read up on it - you can even tell if the view(s) being advocated are, despite being ultimately wrong, even reasonable. That's rich. And it sounds an awful lot like the following: "Man, I sure like to angrily condemn things I disagree with, or which rub me the wrong way. But actually reading stuff and understanding what people I dislike have to say is very boring or even difficult and I don't want to do that. So, I'll just say that reading such things is beneath me and not necessary, but appeal to how strongly I feel about it all anyway. This will do the trick." And I bet it does, for people who already agree with you and could care less about accurately representing what they attack, much less being correct.

But really, go for it. Your defense here condemns your reasoning on these matters better than any barb from me - at this point you're defending the combination of 'angrily, furiously condemning people you disagree with - even going so far as to insult the writers personally - despite having made no effort to even read what they're saying beyond a weak google search, and noting that other people dislike them for some reason'.

And so long as you want to keep throwing around holocaust denial references, I suggest this: people who didn't know anything about the people persecuted in the holocaust except what their friends and supposed experts angrily insisted was the case, and who didn't think it was important to actually learn about the people who were being condemned from the people themselves (who they were, what they actually believed and practiced)... well, you tell me what effect they had on the event at the time.

Whatever you do, don't read any books about that subject! They're likely written by people who have devoted an inordinate amount of time to reading up on the history of the holocaust, which would apparently undermine the value of their writings.

If someone has researched a topic carefully and read a lot about it, it does not mean that their views about it carry any weight, or that their judgement about it is at all reliable. This is pretty self-evident. The point has been demonstrated, so I don’t know why we are still discussing it.

David Irving has read an awful lot more books about Nazism and the Holocaust than you have. Indeed, Irving has spent decades of his life researching and examining primary sources related to this topic, going to all the most important libraries, wading through thousands of archives. He has uncovered completely new documents about WWII. He has written 30 books on the subject. Renowned historians, like Hugh Trevor-Roper (professor of history at Oxford University) have commended David Irving for his "indefatigable, scholarly industry". A.J.P Taylor, another famous professor of history at Oxford University, has praised Irving’s "unrivaled industry" and "good scholarship”. Sir John Keegan, a best-selling professional historian, has said that Irving "knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War", and has claimed that Iriving’s book, Hitler's War, is "indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round".

So, by your own criteria, David Irving is more qualified than you to make a judgements about the Holocaust and he has more of a right to hold firm views about it. By your own criteria, his views about it are more likely to be valid than yours.

But for one small problem. David Irving is convinced that the Holocaust NEVER HAPPENED.

Yes, in some circumstances it is legitimate to completely dismiss claims one has not studied in detail. That is Aristotle's point, and Origen makes a similiar point, when he admits to Celsus that not all Christians have studied up on Christian evidences -- some are not smart enough, and most just don't have time. So for most things, we rely on what people we respect claim. And that is legitimate, and it helps us navigate the world. (Navigation itself depending on maps that the navigator has usually not independently checked -- this is the first time he's been by this reef, possibly.)

However, when one meets people who seem intelligent, and seem to know what they're talking about, and don't seem too wide-eyed and loony, I think you have to back off a bit on the vehemence of your assertions. At that point, you have to earn your right to dogmatize, or tone it down.

Intellectually, even, I don't think ID is in the same position as Holocaust denial, at all. We know that the Holocaust occurred, because we have the testimony of millions of survivors. No one knows directly, or can prove conclusively, that God has not meddled in biology. (Mike Gene makes this point with great subtlety.) Even if we take the anti-Behe response at face value, we only "know" that 10 proteins in the TTPS system (sp?) served as a platform for the 40-protein bacterium flagella system. That's (at most) one step in the middle of the pond (and Behe counters that argument), it's not a highway to heaven. (I pressed Behe on this point, because I DO think it's one possible step in the middle of the pond. But I can't say his reply is necessarily wrong, nor, I think, can anyone else.)

Same with flat-earthism. Have you ever flown in an airplane? I have. I've SEEN the curviture of the earth. But I've watched biological entities all my life, been one, in fact, without SEEING any proof that God or some angel or ET didn't play some role in biological design.

Matter of fact, the contrary supposition, even with NDE, even with genetic evidence that I accept, even with 99% of biologists ranged on the other side, still seems awful hard to believe.

But I don't know. Origins are a fascinating and difficult field, even (I have observed) for the truest believers.

It comes down to Confucius, again. "To know what you know, and know what you don't know -- this is wisdom / knowledge."

So, by your own criteria, David Irving is more qualified than you to make a judgements about the Holocaust and he has more of a right to hold firm views about it. By your own criteria, his views about it are more likely to be valid than yours.

No, by 'my criteria', someone who has read David Irving's books - someone who has actually bothered to read up on his claims, find out what he's saying, and why he's saying it - is in a better position to *dismiss David Irving* than someone who hasn't even bothered to read any of David Irving's books, and largely is relying on second-hand or even third-hand information about him, but who feels really strongly about it all.

That's the point you don't get. Yes, I know that in certain circles you get a pat on the head and a cookie for showing how much you hate ID and think ID proponents are stupid, and the fact that you don't even know what those proponents are saying (and indeed, show evidence that you mangle what they claim) isn't really viewed as a problem. Surprise! You've been fooled. It's actually a really rotten way to reason.

Again, I get it: the idea that you'd have to say 'I never read what this person said, so I'm not in the best position to judge. I've heard they say (X) and I've heard people I trust say (Y), but that's as far as I can go' really sucks. What fun is it if you can't act outraged and angry at people before bothering to read what they said, right? Why should knowledge of a person's argument and claim at all come into play regarding how animated and angry and loud you get in your denunciation of them?

That style of thinking is self-evidently inane. Wrap yourself up in it if you like. Just don't be surprised when the whole "But don't you see? Reading what other people say is counterproductive to understanding why they're wrong!" hack-logic is dismissed when you're not in the 'you get a cookie' crowd.

David,

I think it depends tremendously on how one goes about it. There's a tremendous difference between, say... saying, "I have neither the time nor interest to look into claim X made by person Y, or even to understand what person Y is really claiming. Based on what I know, I think they're wrong, but that's all I can say or care to say." and "I have neither the time nor interest to look into claim X made by person Y, or even understand what person Y is really claiming. But they are absolutely stupid and their arguments don't work and they're utterly unreasonable for taking the positions I kinda-sorta think they do, and suggesting that I should bother to read up on their claims or to even understand what they're claiming before reacting like this is a pointless waste of time."

Yes, I think there's a problem with saying, essentially, 'Behe and Dembski are not only wrong, they're morons, and they're totally unreasonable and (so on and so on). Have I read their books or know their arguments and reasoning beyond the briefest google search? What the heck does that have to do with anything?' And of course, this doesn't just apply to Behe and Dembski.

I know some people feel all warm and fuzzy and delighted at themselves for having a visceral reaction and angrily denouncing What Their Group Targets despite knowing next to nada about it, but I don't think it's acceptable. And whatever differences Brian may have with the group otherwise, this kind of behavior and attitude is rife in the Cult of Gnu.

“Yes, I know that in certain circles you get a pat on the head and a cookie for showing how much you hate ID and think ID proponents are stupid”

I can assure you that if I started angrily denouncing ID in the “circles” in which I move, people would not give me a pat on the head or a cookie. I’m in Dublin, where virtually nobody knows anything about ID – it is not on people’s radars. For example, I am not acquainted with a single person who has ever even heard of Michael Behe or the Discovery Institute. If I started going on about ID (positively or negatively), people would most likely look at me in a bewildered fashion, as if I had nine heads, before gently suggesting that maybe a long around-the-world cruise might do my mental health no harm. In fact, you should be giving me points for my amazing open-mindedness about all this – at least I have HEARD of ID and am prepared to discuss it, unlike anyone else I know : - )

Actually, we can’t just write off the prospects for Intelligent Design theory here in Ireland. I looked it up and found the following information:

“Nelson McCausland, Northern Ireland's born-again Christian culture minister, who believes that Ulster Protestants are one of the lost tribes of Israel, has written to the Ulster Museum’s board of trustees urging them to reflect creationist and intelligent design theories of the universe's origins. The Democratic Unionist minister said the inclusion of anti-Darwinian theories in the museum was ‘a human rights issue’.”

So there is hope – with people like Nelson McCausland on-board, ID might have a bright future amongst the lost tribes of Israel here in Ireland :-)

I can assure you that if I started angrily denouncing ID in the “circles” in which I move, people would not give me a pat on the head or a cookie. I’m in Dublin

I was under the impression that you had access to this newfangled contraption called "the internet", via which people from all over the world can go online. Not sure how I came to that conclusion. ;)

Please tell me you thought both the cookie and pat on the head were literal. That would just make my day.

at least I have HEARD of ID and am prepared to discuss it,

You're not prepared to discuss it. That's been the theme of this entire lengthy strand of comments. You're prepared to denounce it, you're prepared to flip out and scream about how terrible and horrible ID proponents are, you're prepared to very quickly google something if you're up against the wall. But discuss it? No.

You're prepared to discuss ID the way someone is prepared to discuss the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics, when their entire exposure to quantum physics can be summed up as "I watch a lot of Futurama" and "I saw Deepak Chopra talk about this on youtube once." A conversation with such a person can last weeks, granted - too many people love to talk about, at length and with authoritative manner, that which they don't understand.

‘You're prepared to discuss ID the way someone is prepared to discuss the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics, when their entire exposure to quantum physics can be summed up as "I watch a lot of Futurama"’

This analogy is incorrect since my exposure to biology and evolution is greater than “I watch a lot of Futurama”. Moreover, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is, or is nearly, the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, and is considered respectable even by most phycisists who disagree with it - which puts it in a VERY different position to ID. In any case, since you mention it, I am personally pretty sceptical of the Copenhagen interpretation.

I am prepared to discuss ID to the extent to which I think it is worth discussing i.e. somewhere around the level of astrology, Holocaust Denial or flat-earthism.

Rereading this interesting conversation after noticing some traffic this morning . . .

Brian: I explained earlier in this thread why Holocaust denial and flat-earthism make poor parallels to ID, even as abstract theories. I think you need to internalize such distinctions, to talk intelligently about the subject. But of course, that would ruin your pose.